Evidence of meeting #44 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was instructions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Okay. I have a group of people who wish to make comments on that point of order. First on my list is Mr. St-Cyr. Then I have Mr. Karygiannis, Mr. Telegdi, and Mr. Wilson. By the time all this is done, I expect our witnesses will be ready to go home anyway.
I'll go first of all to Mr. St-Cyr.
6:45 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chairman, I am rather frustrated by Mr. Komarnicki's point of order. Over the course of a three-week tour across the country, we heard comments to the effect that Bill C-50 would be discussed later. Well, we're studying Bill C-50 now and we're trying to get some background information. I think this is what Mr. Telegdi is trying to do. We said that we would discuss it later.
As a committee, our vision cannot be limited. We cannot examine a piece of legislation with blinders on and not look beyond this framework. In order to properly consider this bill, we need to look at the immigration system in its entirety. Even though I do not know what Mr. Telegdi is getting at exactly, as a member of this committee, I'm prepared to hear what he has to say.
Moreover, I think each member of the committee has a responsibility to determine whether or not his comments are relevant. If they are not, then too bad for him. It's not up to the other members to decide whether anything I, Mr. Telegdi, Mr. Khan or anyone else for that matter says is relevant. This point of order, which really isn't a point of order, should be ruled out of order. Let's hear Mr. Telegdi's questions and if they are not relevant, then too bad for him.
May 13th, 2008 / 6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, I think we're getting into previous ways of trying to deal with the backlog, with the point system and how it was moved around, and with how the department at that point in time tried to manipulate the situation.
I think the point Mr. Telegdi is trying to bring to our attention is that the situation was manipulated. Certainly it could be the same thing right now; it could be, and I think we need to examine that. These were previous examples, for some of the people who were not here. When people did raise what was happening with raising the point system from 70 to 80, people were certainly characterized and certainly have been blown one way or the other way. This goes right to the heart of the matter, because it is not the minister who came up with the idea of Bill C-50; it was certainly the department that proposed it to her and the minister is following.
6:50 p.m.
Independent
Blair Wilson Independent West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to go on record that I think the line of questioning Mr. Telegdi is pursuing is appropriate. He's discussing the point system. He's discussing the intent of the bill and the way in which the bill will actually be rolled out.
The witnesses here have some history with the department. While we're not asking them to comment on the specific legislation before the House, we are asking them to clarify certain points of history. I think that's the line of questioning Mr. Telegdi is going to pursue.
6:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Good. Thank you.
Now I'll refer briefly to Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which says:
There are no specific rules governing the nature of questions which may be put to witnesses appearing before the committee beyond the general requirement of relevance to the issue before the committee.
Of course, that's quite a broad range. Even when you get into relevance, it's hard to determine what relevance is, especially when we're talking about backlogs and how the point system might affect that.
I would also say to the committee that Marleau and Montpetit make this reference as well:
...public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government. In addition, committees will ordinarily accept the reasons that a public servant gives for declining to answer a specific question or series of questions which involve the giving of a legal opinion, or which may be perceived as a conflict with the witness' responsibility to the Minister....
We're quite clear on that. There are no rules governing the nature of questions beyond the general requirement of relevance, which is very hard to define, and I would ask members to stay away from asking the witnesses about their opinions on policies, because such questions may place them in a conflict with the minister.
Go ahead, Mr. Telegdi.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm getting at a couple of issues. One, we sat as a committee to do the last immigration act, and subsequent to us sitting and making decisions and what have you, it came out that we were provided with imperfect information, to say the least, in the case of Dragan. What is so troublesome is that we ended up with a point system that is pretty dysfunctional. The point system was not driven by the members of the committee. We pointed out the pitfalls of having a point system that would keep carpenters out, people who are now being replaced by the temporary foreign worker program. It didn't make any sense, and the committee raised that.
It wasn't like we had a minister who was exactly up on the topic either, because when he became minister, he said, “We need carpenters; my father was a carpenter.” Then he ended up approving a point system that guaranteed no carpenters got in. So if we're going to be dealing with establishing a point system that works for all Canadians....
This is not a partisan thing, Mr. Komarnicki, because the Liberals were in government when this happened. So keep your partisan powder dry.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
But I think we really have to learn, how did we get to a point where the point system has become virtually dysfunctional and now we need to bring in hundreds of thousands of temporary foreign workers where this should have been covered by people coming in as immigrants and not temporary foreign workers? I'm putting that to you because we want to have a point system that can bring in immigrants versus temporary foreign workers, but that will cover all the folks in want.
That's my question, Mr. Chair.
6:55 p.m.
Visiting Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Public Service Agency, As an Individual
Perhaps I can start and see if I can provide some information that may be helpful. What I would propose is that I talk a little bit about my recollections of the work and the rationale, research, and reasoning that went into the development of the point system that was put in place with the regulations under IRPA.
At the time, we were looking at building what we called a “human capital model”, and the human capital model was meant to design a point system that would allow us to select skilled workers who would be required for Canada at that time and in the future. We were very much focusing on a knowledge-based economy and the need for knowledge workers.
The human capital model approach we took was based on a number of things—fairly extensive research done in terms of the success of immigrants in the labour market, and the characteristics of the labour market, how it was evolving and changing. We did some projection and modelling in terms of the types of workers that would be required in the labour market of the future.
There was, of course, extensive consultation on the development of the new selection model even before the immigration legislation was drafted, going back to the panel that had been appointed by the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, which included people who had expertise in the area of labour markets and economics, and so on. There was extensive consultation prior to that by the three-member panel. There were consultations by the department following the release of the panel's report. There were consultations, research, and work done in the lead-up to making policy recommendations to the government.
The rationale and the idea behind the selection system was to move away from a selection model that looked at occupational group and was very much driven by occupational demand, to a model that would allow us to select people with the kind of human capital that would allow them to succeed in Canada through flexible skill sets: language, education, and so on. That's where we ended up in terms of the design of the selection model that was eventually put in place under the regulations to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I guess we'll have to move. We only have 10 seconds, so we don't have a lot of time to get into another round.
Thank you, Mr. Telegdi.
We'll go to Mr. St-Cyr.
6:55 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I've only been the Bloc Québécois' immigration critic since the start of the year and I'm still not completely familiar with the point system. That's why I would appreciate getting a little more information.
BillC-50 does not deal with the point system. However, we're hearing that this legislative initiative must be adopted because the current system is not working. I'm trying to understand exactly where things stand at this point in time.
Mr. Chairman, could members please be quiet?
The point system is used to select immigrants whose file is then processed under the federal system. Immigrants selected by the Quebec government are therefore processed under this system. Is that correct?
6:55 p.m.
Associate Secretary, Senior Associate Secretary's Office, Treasury Board Secretariat, As an Individual
Quebec uses its own selection grid for economic criteria.
6:55 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
So then, Quebec has its own point system and, one assumes, it applies different criteria.
6:55 p.m.
Associate Secretary, Senior Associate Secretary's Office, Treasury Board Secretariat, As an Individual
That's right. The Quebec selection grid is quite similar to the one used by the federal government. It is based on human capital. To follow up on Ms. Atkinson's answer earlier, because of the economic conditions that prevailed at the time, there was a greater need for professional workers than for tradespeople.
As with any immigration system, conditions change and mechanisms and measures must change as well. Over the years, adjustments were made accordingly. Quebec in fact adjusted its selection grid several years ago for this very reason.
7 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I see.
Mr. Chairman, before we go any further, I would like you to call for some quiet please. Some people are not paying any attention at all to the debate.
7 p.m.
A member
They do not understand French.
7 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Yes, that's a very valid point. The acoustics are very bad in this room. It's the worst room we've ever had our committee meeting in, but we had to come here because of television coverage, and what have you. As the clerk informed me a few moments ago, it's a stone building in here, and when people are talking over in that direction, it's bouncing off the walls. There's no absorption really of sound. So I would ask members to try to keep it down a little bit, please.
7 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chairman, if people have no intention of listening to the discussion, then they should continue their conversations out in the hall.
I'll try to collect my thoughts.
You talked about evolving conditions and I find that interesting. How readily adaptable is the system to change? Can regulatory or legislative changes be made when labour market conditions change? Instead of allocating points solely for studies, will points also be allocated for certain professions?
7 p.m.
Associate Secretary, Senior Associate Secretary's Office, Treasury Board Secretariat, As an Individual
First of all, you have to remember that the point system is only one of the criteria used for immigration purposes. There are also the family and refugee categories. There are always movements of temporary workers, of seasonal workers.
In answer to your question about policy adjustments, I would have to say that any country with an immigration program regularly makes adjustments, most likely every four or five years, to respond to changes.
There is also another important point that I would like to make. I'm not that familiar with this particular bill, but I do know, however, that the idea of having an inventory is not new. I discussed this very subject during one of my first appearances before the committee in 2002. In June 2002, the committee released a report acknowledging that the inventory was an important consideration, that a number of principles should be applied and that it would probably be necessary to bring in a system for selecting potential immigrants, based on various priorities. This is not a new idea.
7 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I want to stop you there because I really would like a more technical answer to my question.
In order to adjust the point system to account for changing conditions, as you so aptly explained, is it necessary to adopt new legislation or regulations? Would a decision by the minister, the deputy minister or officials be sufficient in this case? What would be the implications of wanting to proceed as quickly as possible?
